Gilded Age – American Disasters

May 6, 2014December 16, 2020

Takeaways

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

For my last blog post I figured I would save it for the end of the semester to comment on things that I felt either stuck with me or opened my eyes to different approaches on history. I think Cronon was a perfect piece for the end of the semester as Professor Shrout explained to Wells that Cronon gave us an authoritative perspective on historical writing and narrative just as we were filled with months of thoughts and opinions. I’m not sure I’m going to have the same takeaway as Wells did, coming to have a greater appreciation for historical narrative and storytelling, but I did takeaway something I think will give me a different perspective on the last year of my journey as a history major as well as my major thesis coming up next semester.

Cronon’s work and our subsequent class discussion today made me realize that regardless of the sources I use, the historical facts in play, or previous scholarship on the topic, I alone can create my story. In essence, we have all the tools in front of us to shape history in whatever manner to provide us with the message we want to send to our audience. Whether that means picking the starting and stopping points, the type of primary sources, the certain perspective of the subject, the different kinds of voices, or even the moral questions you want to ask or answer; the story you create is entirely up to you. Many of us, I would assume, feel the need that we have to take stories of the past and comment on them now to make our point, however; I think we need to expand our commentary as young historians and realize that we can create new stories that explain the history we want told and ask the questions we want to be answered. I just hope this epiphany is in time to make my mark on history. Also, CT tremendous closure to the course. Swanson, out.

April 30, 2014December 16, 2020

The Dust Bowl: An End to The Gilded Age or a Critique on Government

Clayton Koppes two part book review of Paul Bonniefied’s The Dust Bowl and Donald Worster’s Dust Bowl offers an interesting comparison on two books about the same general topic. Koppes strongly favors Worster’s book as a more compelling use of the Dust Bowl for a general critique on capitalism, government policy, and technological impact on the environment. As Price cunningly notes in his post, Koppes praises Worster’s use of the Dust Bowl as an example the failures regarding short term New Deal relief, the flaws in agricultural capitalism, the misuse of land, and the need to blame Midwest farmers for the Dust Bowl. Further Koppes critiques Bonnefield’s emphasis on natural blame for the Dust Bowl, as Bonnefield insists that capitalism, free market economics, and technology had little impact on this disaster. From my prospective, it seems almost impossible to argue one way or another about Koppes opinion. As I have read neither book, I am forced to accept Koppes’ interpretation of the author’s arguments as true, well thought out and warranted. If everything that Koppes interprets and reviews is true, I would say his article seems justified. Nevertheless, one must be careful as Koppes could very well have had an ideological bias behind his review.

When I was reading this book review, I could not think about the historical significance of the Dust Bowl. As Koppes notes, there has been little scholarly work covering the Dust Bowl and of the work that has been done, there is still much debate about the cultural, economic, environmental, governmental, and historical significance. There seems to be large scientific evidence (as noted in Worster’s use of the lack of grass cover, diminished crop yield, and the lowered population rate in affected areas) that humans, pushed mostly by the government, attributed to Dust Bowl and the black blizzards. While we can blame whomever we would like, the question must now be about the historical meaning of the Dust Bowl. If we consider Worster’s argument and place the entire blame on the government and capitalism does this mean we should extend the Gilded Age through the 1930’s? If it was truly the government wanting to extend power to large corporations through exploitative measures, certainly this seems justified. As seen in this course, the Gilded Age was defined by disasters of premature technological innovation and favored the expansion of powerful companies. However does this mean that the Gilded Age continued into the 1980’s like Koppes mentions? How much does government favor large corporations and big business even today? Should we blame capitalism for modern environmental disasters or do we blame the failures of technology and ignorance? Personally, I think Koppes book review opens up many different discussion points about the meaning of the Dust Bowl. The 1930’s is often considered a hybrid time period mixed between the Depression and World War II and thus many of the events have been underreported. I do not think we can expand the Gilded Age and place blame for the Dust Bowl on Gilded Age policy or any economic policy. From what I have interpreted about these two books, the Dust Bowl seems more an unknown consequence of government policy. The New Deal policy was not purposely imposed for the destruction of natural land nor for the promotion of big business. It was more what FDR thought would be the best temporary fix for the Depression and unfortunately the Dust Bowl was an unforeseen problem.

April 16, 2014December 16, 2020

“She walked More Like a Man than a Woman”

“Is sickness or carrying disease one of the situations in which most Americans can accept depriving people of their liberty?” This question posed by Judith Walzer Leavitt in her introduction serves as a basis for her underlying argument throughout the book. For my chapter I’ve chosen to read, “She Walked More Like a Man than a Woman”, which reviews how Mary Mallon was categorized based on social stigmas. The prejudice of her race and the social expectations of a woman played a critical role in the ultimate decision of how to handle the case of Mary Mallon.

John Marsh brings up an interesting point when considering the isolation of Mary Mallon as a disaster and comparing that to the pitfalls of the Gilded Age. As John points to the infallibility of science, it can also be directed at the people who were involved in the Public Health Services, notably George Soper. As an upper level official he strongly believed in the dangers of carriers of typhoid (more specifically women) and was destine to search for the answer. His high status in society compared with Mary Mallon’s lower-class immigrant status provided a critical disconnect that made Soper unable to relate to Mary and vice versa. This disconnect served as a major contributor to the lack of sentiment Soper felt for Mary, and was a factor in her ultimate sentence.

It is true that women during the Gilded Age were stuck in a domestic role and their opportunities for jobs were limited. Mary Mallon epitomized this dilemma because she worked as a chef for higher class families. Soper targeted her as a carless woman and blamed working class women domestics for spreading the bacteria. The way that George Soper depicted Mary Mallon served as both an understanding as to why she was unjustly isolated in the first place in accordance with basic prejudices during this time.

As a single Irish female over the age of 40, these added up for the perfect combination to discard Mary Mallon from society. I want to briefly question the argument that Leavitt adds toward the end of this chapter. While Leavitt goes on to give more examples of Soper’s judgment of Mary, she concludes her argument by trying to compare German-born Frederick Moersch to Mary’s case. Leavitt loses some strength in her argument because she tries to overstretch a comparison that I feel is unnecessary to her initial arguments. Leavitt speculates many factors in the case of Moersch that she was unable to find factual backing for.

I look forward to discussing other thoughts on comparing Mary’s case to those of the opposite sex, and if others found her comparison helpful or hindrance on Leavitt’s objective to prove how gender, race and class lead to Mary’s ultimate isolation.

April 15, 2014December 16, 2020

Mary Mallon’s Forced Isolation as a Typical Gilded Age Disaster

For my chapter I’ve chosen to read “Extraordinary and Even Arbitrary Powers,” which discusses Mary Mallon’s place in the history and role in evolution of public health policy. I was especially motivated to examine this chapter because it seemed to be somewhat of a departure from the more culturally grounded historical approach I’ve been taking in my project.

Ironically, I found the chapter to be especially interesting due to its cultural implications. It informs an understanding of Gilded Age culture’s conduciveness to disaster. More specifically, the isolation of Mary Mallon, if considered a disaster, demonstrates the pitfalls of the Gilded Age belief in the infallibility of science, or scientific method, to solve any problem. If I remember correctly, this concept been discussed in quite a few class discussions and likely some blog posts.

This way that this belief in the infallibility of science contributed to Gilded Age disasters is seen in the Galveston Hurricane and the city planners’ refusal to appreciate the environmental dangers of the city’s location, the “unsinkable” Titanic, and faith in the damn overlooking Johnstown.

As argued in “Extraordinary and Even Arbitrary Powers,” Mary Mallons capture and subsequent isolation can be viewed as a manifestation of the belief that it was possible for humankind to conquer disease. This was due to the confidence brought about by rapid scientific advancement, particularly in the field of bacteriological studies. By choosing to ignore Mallon’s constitutional rights and freedoms for exclusively scientific reasons, the New York City Board of Health and, insomuch as it tolerated this injustice, society on the whole, allowed a belief in the exclusive ability of science to better society to supersede the constitutional rights on which this very same society was founded. In the sense that dismissal of these constitutional rights was, or at the very least had potential to be, disastrous, Mary Mallon’s incarceration was representative of a Gilded Age disaster.

March 12, 2014December 16, 2020

Bouncing Back

Blog Post 7 (for Thursday, 3/12)

In the aftermath of the Johnstown flood, the surviving inhabitants of Johnstown reacted much more methodically than I had imagined they would, considering how traumatic the event was. They were preoccupied with establishing order, and with conducting the business of rebuilding in a disciplined manner.

Almost immediately, the survivors gathered to elect temporary leadership; Arthur Moxham and his partner Tom Johnson were chosen. Under their guidance, committees were formed to gather food and drinkable water, as well as to locate other survivors and gather the dead. These actions represent an interesting contradiction, however— while food and water were pressing deficiencies, and other survivors ought to be sought out, what practical use does a body count have? None, other than to quantify the destruction of the flood.

And even though collecting and observing the brutalized bodies of their neighbors was an emotionally demanding task, it was done with organization and careful planning. The dead were carried back to established morgues, where they were either identified, or categorized with extreme detail. Record entries describe their gender, height, weight, age, hair, dress, and the items they carried. Furthermore, graves were dug rather unnecessarily for each of the deceased, despite the trouble.

I would have expected more looting and robbery, a greater sense of religiosity, and an increase in personal interests as opposed to community interests amongst the survivors. McCullough mentions some of this, but mostly emphasizes a much more uplifting narrative. In the aftermath of the flood, individuals were inclined to cooperate, much like the cogs of the industrial machines they had once operated. Furthermore, Molly describes how members of the press and other visitors came from all around to assist in the relief effort while compiling their stories. I can only wonder whether the sense of community and desire for order that these individuals showed, even after having been reduced to utter chaos, was particular to those who lived during the Gilded Age and Progressive Era.

March 10, 2014December 16, 2020

How the Viaduct Exemplifies Gilded-Age Disaster

Sherwood Callaway

Blog Post 6 (for Tuesday, 3/11)

The Johnstown Flood contains all the elements of a Gilded-Age disaster archetype. The dam itself was gilded. The circumstances under which it burst exposed the dam for what it was— shoddily built and poorly maintained. Fatalities were mostly immigrant laborers who lived in the valley below. As much as they were victims of the flood, they were the victims of negligence. Wealthy businessmen, who perpetuated the poor conditions that these laborers worked in and lived in, had been careless in allowing the dam to exist in disrepair. Catherine points out in her post that the “capitalists, who commanded and encouraged construction of the dam, were not physically affected with the eventual collapse of the dam.” They were confident that nature could not overcome human architectural achievements. This story of class struggle, industrialism, tragic negligence, Machiavellian capitalism and arrogance during the Gilded-Age is a familiar one.

David McCullough writes in The Johnstown Flood that the “viaduct was one of the landmarks of the country” (107). I would venture to say that the viaduct was also a temporal landmark representing the Gilded-Age, and exemplary of many of the elements that comprise a Gilded-Age disaster archetype. This particular viaduct was built for train usage, making it distinct from similar structures that have existed since antiquity, and uniquely industrial— fitting for Gilded-Age use. McCullough also explains that it was an especially impressive architectural achievement, standing “seventy-five feet high and [bridging] the river gap with one single eight-foot arch” (107). The concept of a viaduct, or any other bridge for that matter, demonstrates an inherent conflict between humans and their environments. Human convenience is often at odds with the circumstances of natural world. The viaduct allowed trains to go over the river, rather than having to go around it. During the flood, the viaduct’s arch became clogged with debris, forming a second damn. It collapsed under the pressure of the water and was destroyed. Makes me think of a Blue Oyster Cult lyric that aptly describes the moment: “history shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man.”

Except that was about Godzilla.

February 26, 2014December 16, 2020

“Fire!” in a Theater: The Human Responsibility of “Natural” Disasters

Historical Background

900 audience members filled the Brooklyn Theater on December 5, 1876 to watch Kate Claxton and Harry S. Murdock perform The Two Orphans. Shortly after the performance began, a gaslight set fire to extra scenery behind the stage and soon spread throughout the theater. After an audience member shouted, “Fire!” and the management realized they did not have fire hoses or water buckets, or fire escapes from the balconies, chaos ensued. Some escaped, but 295 people met their deaths either by burns and smoke inhalation or being trampled to death. When firefighters were finally able to enter the building, they found bodies melted together and 100 victims were burned so badly they were unidentifiable. The city of Brooklyn remembers the victims through a 30-foot-high granite memorial.[1]

Historical Questions to be Asked and Examined:

While the lack of fire hoses, water buckets, and fire escapes may not have directly spread the fire, they also did not aid those seeking safety. Additionally, the minimal number of exits created a panic that caused a stampede. Therefore, I hope to investigate the extent of damage and deaths that resulted due to human planning. Unlike the Chicago Fire of 1871, which was amplified by the preceding dry season, the Brooklyn Theater Fire of 1876 occurred in a human constructed and monitored building. How many died at the hands of the fire versus the hands of panic and does this make it easier to place blame? Looking beyond this disaster, what was the role of the Brooklyn Theater Fire of 1876 in creating safety measures in public spaces, and fire precautions?

Potential Primary Sources:

One heading of the Davidson College history department’s research guide on the library website is called “U.S. newspapers: 18^th-20^th century, multi-title collections.” It lists four databases to search newspapers published during the 19^th century. I think newspapers are the quickest and easiest way to understand how New York as well as cities that are not New York report this disaster as news, opinion columns, and images. In these articles, I hope to learn about sources of aid, sentiments about management, and comparisons to similar disasters. The history department’s research guide also lists book and pamphlet collections, which will take more time to review, but will provide more significant narratives. I have looked through the available diaries and journal entries, but none list matches for this incident.

After creating my collection of primary sources I will begin to rely on secondary sources that describe the safety measures taken by different theaters in comparison to Brooklyn Theater as well as safety measures established after this fire to help me determine if the Brooklyn Theater Fire was preventable.

[1] “This Day in History: December 5, 1876: Hundreds die in Brooklyn theater fire,” History.com, Accessed February 20, 2014, http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/hundreds-die-in-brooklyn-theater-fire

February 25, 2014December 16, 2020

Gilded Age Topic Proposal

Lodged between the
jammed pack Civil War and reconstruction era and the booming Progressive Era of
the early 20^th century, the Gilded Age lends itself to critiques as
a time where the nation was littered with fraud, corruption and rotten to the
core. The term “Gilded Age” was coined from the title of the novel published by
Charles Dudley Warner and Mark Twain in 1873, and as the decades passed,
scholars from the 20^th century began to unanimously deem this term
an appropriate descriptor for the period. This label for the late 18^th
century has caused much evaluation from historians ever since the 20^th
century and has had rather larger implications then possibly predicted. Since
the mid-20^th century, Gilded Age historians have gone through
serious reevaluation in an effort, not to deny what happened during the period,
but rather assess the practicality of the Gilded Age as a serious and study
worthy period of the American history. In the past few decades, scholarship on
the viability of the Gilded Age, upon closer examination, has revealed some new
ways of envisioning the term “Gilded Age” and has lent itself to the question:
if the late 1800s was not the Gilded Age, they ask, then what was it? Other
historical questions surrounding this scholarship are: does the period between
the Civil War and the Progressive Era even deserve a periodization of its own
and if new historians deem the Gilded Age as not worthy of its name then do we
have to discuss the practicality of combining it with the Progressive Era as a
period of grassroots movement and establishment of a foundation for the
Progressive Era? Some primary sources that I would want to analyze would be
newspaper clippings during and after the Gilded Age period to look for the
shift in labeling this period, possibly political speeches that address the
times of the period and how it will be categorized in the future. Also, it
might be beneficial to look at historical magazine articles to see and analyze
any scholarship coming out at that time regarding the outlook of the period its
difference from the Civil War Era.

February 17, 2014December 16, 2020

Morality and Consumerism

An interesting point that Edwards discussed in chapter 4 of New Spirits is the relationship between women, morality and consumerism during the Gilded Age. As this age progressed and industrialization as well as urbanization continued to swell, material objects began to take on weight that they had never held before. Certain methods of travel, parties, and fashion all became status symbols that proved an individual was superior to the majority of the population (95).

Women’s fashion became a popular avenue for the display of such Social Darwinist attitudes. As shopping typically fell into the female societal role, women in particular fell prey to rising consumerism and increasing advertisements.

An interesting paradox in the relationship between woman and consumerism lies in this era’s understanding of the female character. Women were typically regarded as fragile and easily corruptible; their delicate sensibilities required them to be isolated from business and industry because of these circles corrupting influences. Yet, as consumerism grew and women’s independence slowly increased, women were thrust into the middle of American consumer culture and all of its corrupting influence. Edwards suggests that during this time period “material standards posed many moral problems” as consumerism grew and became central to American culture(96). This situation is intriguing in that women, who represented morality in humanity, could no longer be kept apart from societal corruption. Edwards mentions William Dean Howells’s book, The Rise of Silas Lepham, as an example of this loss in innocence (95).

Society and its social boundaries could not stay the same through the rise of consumerism. As Emily mentioned, women’s roles adapted in many ways beyond consumerism through the Gilded Age’s progression.

It is important to keep in mind the characterization of women during this time period in order to understand the “moral problems” associated with consumerism. People believed that women were particularly vulnerable to this rising corrupt consumer culture.

January 27, 2014December 16, 2020

A Positive Understanding of Disaster: New Confidence From Gilded-Age “Innovation”

Blog Post 3 (for Tuesday, 1/28)

In his introduction to American Disasters, Steven Biel reinforces a notion that our class has grown familiar with over the last few weeks: the category of disaster is a seemingly arbitrary catchall for unusual destructive events. The essays that follow further demonstrate how the study of disaster can be approached from almost any angle.

Sheila Hones, in “Distant Disasters, Local Fears”, describes how local characterizations of distant disasters can illuminate “areas of immediate cultural or social concern” (171). In particular, she examines how a Boston publication called The Atlantic Monthly described disastrous events during late 19^th century. For example, “His Best” is the fictional tale of a working class Irishman who falls in love with an upper class girl in the midst of a flood. The narrative integrates the natural disaster as a metaphor/parallelism of the social instability that the romance represents. The working class man’s passion is a threat to societal order. Perhaps the “immediate… concern” that this particular story addresses is the problem of incorporating the immigrants that were “flooding” America during the late 19^th century. Additionally, Hones also explains that distance makes the event feel like a “safe theater” for social introspection (171). Because “His Best” is set in fictional Virginia, rather than real Boston, the author is free to explore the issues of class in a non-confrontational manner.

Kevin Rozario, in his essay “What Comes Down Must Go Up”, writes about the economic opportunities that result from disasters. Just as disasters promote social progress by revealing the “challenges to established ways”, they also promote economic progress through “creative destruction”—the idea that outdated systems must be eliminated to make way for more modern replacements (Biel 3, Rozario 73). For example, a businessman named George Harvey who witnessed the San Francisco earthquake and fire of 1906 expressed excitement for the “resuscitated capital” (73). By this he meant the physically rebuilt capital city, but also alluded to “the revitalizing role of the calamity for American capitalism” (73). Inevitably, innovation and progress would replace what was destroyed by the quake. For Harvey, the San Francisco quake was an economic opportunity. This philosophy seems particularly well paired with the rapid industrialization that characterized the Gilded Age. And on a deeper level, the notion that “destruction breeds progress” is consistent with the Gilded Age’s lack of policy regarding industry regulation. Eli Caldwell describes how Gilded Age businessmen were hardly concerned with the ethics of industrialization, saying: “the so-called progressives of San Francisco cared as little about the effect of their plans on the working class as did Haussmann, though at least they did not blast away their housing with cannon.”

These two articles illuminate the cultural and social milieu of the Gilded Age while also demonstrating the manner in which disasters were understood during this period. Personally, I think that “His Best” and George Harvey both show that people who lived during the late 19^th and early 20^th century felt more confident in the face of disaster, because of social, intellectual, economic, and technological changes that they believed were “innovations.” The fictional story seems comfortable utilizing the disaster as a literary metaphor, and Harvey views disaster as an economic opportunity.